Boldly Going Nowhere

NY Times ^ | 4/13/09 | Seth Shostak

[LibWhacker]

IT’S a birthright proffered by science and prophesied by “Star Trek,” “Battlestar Galactica” and a thousand other space operas: We’re destined to go to the stars. Our descendants will spread beyond this nondescript solar system and seek adventure and bumpy-headed pals in the stellar realms.

Well, cool your warp jets, Mr. Scott, because we’re not about to breach the final frontier. Piling into a starship and barreling into deep space may long remain — like perfect children or effort-free bathroom cleaners — a pipe dream.

The fastest rocket ever launched, NASA’s New Horizons probe to Pluto, roared off its pad in 2006 at 10 miles per second. That pace would be impressive in the morning commute, and it’s passably adequate for traversing the solar system, something we’ve done and will continue to do. Combustion rockets, like New Horizons, can deliver you to the Moon in a matter of days, Mars in a matter of months, and the outer planets in a matter of years. But a trip to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star beyond the Sun and 100 million times farther from us than the Moon, would consume a tedious 800 centuries or so. You’ll want to upgrade.

[Salgak]

No, it just means that one theory, of the Alcubierre Warp, is unworkable given the current state of physics and engineering.

There may be MANY ways of going faster-than-light. We just haven't discovered one yet. Or, as the late Arthur C. Clarke once said. . .

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

This is also known as Clarke's First Law. . .

[fr_freak]

Oh, please. Everyone knows why the federal government poured money into the space program, and it wasn’t for love of knowledge.

Well, aren't you just the little cynic? I assume you are referring to the great space race where we wanted to beat Russia into space. Tell me then, O Great Cynic, why are we still engaging in multiple shuttle missions per year? Why are we sending probes to Mars, etc.?

[fr_freak]

14 inventions! That is amazing. Plus, of course, velcro and Tang. Plus a bag of rocks.

The projected lifetime cost of the Shuttle program alone is $173 Billion. I don’t know the cost of the earlier programs.

That is roughly 10 billion per invention. I’d love to have my share back.

First, that was a partial list, so untwist your panties a little. Second, that is only a partial list of everyday inventions, not the sum total of all knowledge acquired through the program.

Third, are you seriously telling me that you think the space program is a complete waste of time and money? Are you serious? You think we should just stop altogether? I would feel sorry for anyone unimaginative enough to feel that way. Perhaps the space program would be better served if it were privatized, but canceling it would be pathetic. However, the space program will never be completely privatized because there are too many military implications. Allowing another country's space program to flourish while ours died would be suicidal.

Fourth, you should be complaining about the hundreds of billions wasted by our government on entitlement and pork programs, not to mention that our current presidential office holder just tossed untold billions to irresponsible companies who have bad business models so that he could engineer a hostile federal takeover. Crying about 173 billion spent on a program that actually has valuable returns is asinine by comparison.

[shibumi]

Seth Shostak needs to grasp the concept of non-locality.

[cripplecreek]

In a sense the space program is every bit as important as the military. From a military stand point its the high ground and only a moron cedes the high ground.

If I were king, the first thing I would do is formally withdraw from the outer space treaty and tell business that the gold rush is on. I suspect it would spur investment in research and development of space travel.

[GreyMountainReagan]

priority? The nearest freakin star is 80,000 years away. If we get there messages will take 4 years to travel that far.

Honestly, what is the point?

[GreyMountainReagan]

Every single one of those would have been invented without the space program for 100 times less money in development.

The question is what inventions have been pushed out because of the huge waste of capital devoted to the space program.

Military OK but driving a car on the moon or driving a golf ball.

What is the point again?

[GreyMountainReagan]

Amen,

Think of sending people outside the solar system? I don’t think people have any grasp of the vast distances. Wright brothers flying to the moon is walk in the park compared to flying to nearest star (which has no planets by the way).

Want to travel to a star. Get in a space ship and fly into the sun.

Don’t even mention the Hubble telescope. For 100 times less money we could have better telescope here on earth. Kind of like the tang invention.

[GreyMountainReagan]

“Tell me then, O Great Cynic, why are we still engaging in multiple shuttle missions per year? “

---

Only so many elementary school kids could send seed growing experiments into space so the govt thought up the space station....

To give the freakin shuttle something to do.

The shuttle has killed 14 people and produced nothing. The shuttle still exists to build the ISS. The ISS exists to give the shuttle someting to do.

[Frank_Discussion]

Alcubierre’s theory only opened the door. There are people who have expanded on that beginning, and brought the energy requirements WAY down. We’ll have FTL ships someday.

[Salgak]

I know, I know several of them. The Dream lives on: pity those who cannot, or worse yet, REFUSE to dream big. . .

[Frank_Discussion]

“The nearest freakin star is 80,000 years away. If we get there messages will take 4 years to travel that far.

Honestly, what is the point?”

To get away from you, for one thing. LOL.

[fr_freak]

Every single one of those would have been invented without the space program for 100 times less money in development.

I disagree. Necessity is the mother of invention. Many of those technologies were developed to fulfill a specific space-faring need, but once created, were then recognized as useful on Earth. Whether we would have them now without the space program is questionable.

But seriously, you wouldn't want to go to the moon, or Mars, wherever, just for the hell of it? You seriously require that we get a monetary return for the efforts for it to be worthwhile at all? As far as I'm concerned, the exploration of space is a continuance of the American pioneer spirit, and I suspect I'm not alone, because otherwise there wouldn't be such popular support for the program despite the fact that it is, indeed, expensive. But again, I would cut every single entitlement and make-work program in our government before I would even think about cutting the space program, even if we didn't get a single new invention out of it (but we will - that's guaranteed).

[Frank_Discussion]

ISS exists to show us how to build large spacecraft in space, so we can go the other places.

[Frank_Discussion]

I will now predict you will get a response a la:

“Not with my tax money!”

If ever anybody went after the entitlement programs with such energy...

[GreyMountainReagan]

“But again, I would cut every single entitlement and make-work program in our government before I would even think about cutting the space program, even if we didn’t get a single new invention out of it “

---

Serious question. Why are you so enamored with the Space Program?

[GreyMountainReagan]

“ISS exists to show us how to build large spacecraft in space, so we can go the other places.”

---

What other places?

[fr_freak]

Serious question. Why are you so enamored with the Space Program?

I've spent the last few posts trying to explain that. Not sure what more I can say.

[Frank_Discussion]

Moon, Mars, Space stations with more capabilities. colonies. Agricultural facilities controlled outside the vagaries of local weather disasters, tourism, whatever.

You have to start somewhere, and ISS is a triumph of engineering and organization. ISS paves the way to doing more than crawling off the ground in little ships to limp just barely to the very closest destination. If you don’t appreciate the options getting off planet offers, and if going to those destinations make no sense to you, then I don’t think we’ll ever agree.

[Frank_Discussion]

Let me answer it my way, with three things:

1. We have pretty good understanding that asteroids have caused great havoc here on this planet. Havoc that would be civilization-ending if it happened today. Both species survival and civilization recovery would be well served by having a backup in space.
2. There is virtually unlimited energy and resources off-planet. Moot all of the greenies arguments of ‘limited resources’ and elevate the lives of pretty much everyone on the Earth.
3. It is a different place than this one, and the ultimate tourist destination.
4. Capitalizing on the third reason makes good busniness sense.